THE IMPACT OF TEAM CLIMATE RELATED FACTORS CONDUCIVE TO THE EMERGENCE OF PROCESS- ORIENTED WAYS OF COLLABORATION WITHIN ORGANIZATIONS

(1)

THE IMPACT OF TEAM CLIMATE RELATED FACTORS

CONDUCIVE TO THE EMERGENCE OF

PROCESS-ORIENTED WAYS OF COLLABORATION WITHIN

ORGANIZATIONS

A case study in the public sector

Graduation thesis

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

MSc Change Management

June 2014

Written by

Anne-Loes Marlien Pool

(2)

ABSTRACT

In this paper the outcomes of sixteen interviews are used to enlarge the understanding of the impact of factors conducive to the emergence of process-oriented ways of collaboration within organizations. The factors focused on in this research are the following climate characteristics: operational freedom, internal and external debate, leadership, and team norms. The interviews were conducted in four teams within one organization. During the interviews there was room for questions about the experience of the interviewee with other factors influencing the emergence of process-oriented ways of collaboration. Examples were asked that showed the influence of these factors. The interview fragments were coded and combined in a coding scheme. Results show that a high degree of operational freedom and internal and external debate positively influences the development and that leadership and team norms that support the desired changes also positively contribute. Other factors that were found to be of influence are the physical grouping of employees, time constraints, low interconnectedness of team members and lack of clarity about the change project.

Keywords: Emergent change, planned change, team climate, process-oriented ways of

collaboration, qualitative

(3)

1. INTRODUCTION

In the twenty-first century more and more organizations move away from a functional towards a more process-oriented organization of work (Tang, Pee, & Lijima, 2013; Turner, Huemann, & Keegan, 2008). According to Kohlbacher and Reijers(2013), Reijers (2006) and Tang et al. (2013) process-oriented organizations focus on attention for collaboration, actions based on the amount of value added, employees working with a view that is wider than their own functional silo and processes are ownership-focused. In other words, at the operational level a process-oriented way of collaboration is needed to enable an organization-wide process-oriented organization of work. Key in process-oriented organizations is the management of cross-functional processes, to make an organization work (Armistead & Machin, 1998). For organizations to move towards process-oriented ways of collaboration, change is needed within several elements of the organization (Kohlbacher & Gruenwald, 2011; Kohlbacher & Reijers, 2013).

1.1 Planned and emergent processes of change

The common view on change is to distinguish between planned and emergent change approaches (Burnes, 2009; Cummings & Worley, 2009). Over the years the importance of the emergent change processes intensified, nevertheless empirical studies on emergent change are still scarce (Burnes, 2009; Higgs & Rowland, 2011) and emergent change is still considered as something that just happens within organizations (Mackay & Chia, 2013). As Weick (2000) argues: “emergent change consists of ongoing accommodations, adaptation and alterations that produce fundamental change without a priori intentions to do so” (p. 237). Employees influence the change by the adaptive choices they make, and management is responsible for sensing the labels and interpretations that capture the patterns in those adaptive choices (Weick, 2000).

(6)

evolutionary and ecological processes in shaping the strategy and performance of firms” (p. 876).

The above stresses the importance of identifying factors that are conducive to the emergence of certain changes. Besides planned processes, emergent processes should be accounted for. Therefore the distinction is made between factors related to planned and emergent change processes influencing change outcomes.

1.2 Factors conducive to emergent processes

The importance of identifying factors conducive to emergent processes is stressed in relation to understanding how change works in practice and why sometimes it does not (Ford & Ford, 1995; Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001; Porras & Silvers, 1991). Over the years research showed that employees play a major role in the success or failure of changes (Shin, Taylor, & Seo, 2012; Van Knippenberg, Martin, & Tyler, 2006) and that the climate of the work environment is a strong predictor of organizational performance and effectiveness (Kruglanski, Higgins, Pierro, & Capozza, 2007).

According to Tierney (1999) the climate of the organization is important for shaping employees’ actions and these climate characteristics could be underlying the adaptive choices mentioned earlier by Weick (2000). The specific climate that could be interesting for process-oriented organizations is the team climate, because employees in process-process-oriented organizations often work in teams (Tang et al., 2013).

1.3 Practical and scientific relevance

Within this study the climate characteristics influencing the change are researched, to enable organizations to have a better understanding of the conditions that trigger the adaptive responses of employees and give rise to the emergence of process-oriented ways of collaboration. Earlier researchers stressed the importance of climate research which focuses on a particular phenomenon of interest (Kruglanski et al., 2007). Interest for process-oriented ways of collaboration is based on the need for alignment of employees with aspects such as process design, structure, culture and leadership to accomplish the intended result (Kohlbacher & Gruenwald, 2011; Kohlbacher & Reijers, 2013).

(7)

uncoordinated or counterproductive changes (Biedenbach & Söderholm, 2008). A high level of flexibility and a high level of controllability are somewhat conflicting capabilities. This research will contribute to understanding the conditions that are underlying the adaptive choices made by employees, using the approach of identifying key issues to which greater attention should be paid (Palmer & Dunford, 2008). Research on factors that are conducive to the emergence of certain change will enable organizations to increase the controllability of the process by creating a climate that is amenable for change and at the same time maintaining the flexibility of emergence.

1.4 Research question

The research question is divided into two sub-questions to be able to distinguish between factors conducive to planned and emergent processes adding to the development of process-oriented ways of collaboration. Components of planned change are those actions that are developed and planned for up front of the change. Team climate factors relate to the emergent processes focused upon within this research.

The question to be answered by the research presented in this paper thus reads, in full: What factors are conducive to the emergence of process-oriented ways of intra-team and inter-team collaboration in an organization?

The first specified research question thus reads, in full: How do components of planned change influence the development of process-oriented ways of collaboration?

The second specified research question thus reads, in full: How do team climate related factors give rise to the emergence of processes that add to the development of process-oriented ways of collaboration?

1.5. Research paper outline

(8)

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

In this chapter the concepts presented in the introduction are elaborated on. First, the process of emergent change is discussed. Secondly, a definition of team climate is given. Thirdly, the outcomes of previous research on team climate are discussed and lastly the climate characteristics included in this research are formulated.

2.1 The process of emergent change

As mentioned in the introduction, empirical studies on emergent change are scarce, despite of the fact that from the 1980’s it is the dominant approach to change. Proponents of the emergent change approach see organizational change as a continuous open-ended process of adaptation to changing conditions and circumstances (Burnes, 1997). This process is a bottom-up rather than a top-down approach, which was the leading approach before the 1980s. During emergent change, change leaders (often top management) are facilitating the process to make employees within an organization able to change (Burnes, 1997).

Lovas and Goshal (2000) took emergent change as the underlying logic for the construction of their guided evolution model. In their article, Lovas and Goshal (2000) also refer to the important role of top management in emergent change by stating that through indirect interventions evolutions can be guided. In order to be able to guide evolution in organizations the processes bringing about change, or in other words the factors conducive to the emergence of certain changes, should be understood. According to Lovas and Goshal (2000) evolution within organizations happens through the process of variation, selection and retention. The process of variation is referred to as the generation of new ideas or options for change. Selection is the process of deciding which ideas will be tried out. Followed by the retention process of deciding which ideas will be continued on.

(9)

2.2 Team climate characteristics that enable variation and selection/retention processes

Team climate is defined as the repetitive patterns of behavior, attitudes, and feelings that characterize the team, resulting in the way of working together that the team has developed (Anderson & West, 1998; Isaksen & Lauer, 2002; Weiss, Hoegl, & Gibbert, 2011).

This study will focus on the perceived team climate by the team members and its leader, because perceptions are seen as a precursor for employees actions (Tierney, 1999). Schneider, Brief and Guzzo (1996) complement this by stating that the perceptions of the employees are the ‘feel’ of the organization that directs the actions of the employees.

Earlier research identified several characteristics that a team climate can consist of within an organization. In the next section outcomes of earlier research on team climate are discussed.

2.3 Previous research on team climate characteristics

Earlier research has identified a number of climate dimensions that influence the actions taken by employees. Isaksen and Lauer (2002) studied the most suitable team climate for creativity and stated: “the climate influences processes such as: problem solving, decision-making, communicating and coordinating, learning and creating, and levels of motivation and commitment” (p. 79). When reading closely, these processes could be seen as attributes of organizational change processes. Isaksen and Lauer (2002) found that dimensions that influence the team climate are: challenge and involvement (extent to which teams are given opportunities and get involved), freedom (degree that teams can take initiatives), trust and openness (degree of emotional safety in relationships), idea time (time taken to generate ideas), playfulness and humor (amount of spontaneity and frivolity shown), conflict (degree of tensions within a team), idea support (consideration of new ideas), debate (occurrence of encounters and disagreement between viewpoints) and risk-taking (degree of tolerated ambiguity and uncertainty). Their qualitative research showed that highly creative teams could be characterized as having high interpersonal dynamics, energy and motivation, openness, supportive leadership, focus, direction and goals, trust and smart use diversity of skills and experience. Weiss et al. (2011) studied the optimal team climate for innovation, elements of the team climate were: sense of security, tolerance of mistakes, open exchange of information, encouragement of trying new things and risk taking.

(10)

for change. She argued that the preconditions that are necessary for a change-enabling climate are: the willingness to take risks and break from the status quo, a high level of trust among members, operational freedom, openness of communication (importance of sharing ideas and voicing concerns) and employee development (improving skills to get confidence that employees will take opportunities and are capable) (Tierney, 1999). Apart from that, the quality of relationship among employees and between employees and their leader is highlighted as an important precursor for a change-enabling climate.

Schneider et al. (1996) focused on defining a climate for sustainable change, resulting in four climate dimensions: the nature of the interpersonal relationships (mutual sharing, trust, conflict and cooperative or competitive contact), the nature of the hierarchy (way decisions are made within the organization and the distance between management and workforce), the nature of the work (challenging, adaptable, resources available) and the focus of support and rewards (are goals and standards known and shared and is the new behavior supported and rewarded). Schneider et al. (1996) concluded that successful change is most likely when employees have a challenging job, participate in the change initiative, and mutual trust is present.

As shown above, several researchers have researched factors that influence the team climate and a lot of elements are shown repeatedly in different research. For the purpose of this research the different factors derived from a variety of previous research are reduced and taken together in four climate characteristics: operational freedom, internal and external debate, leadership and team norms. An overview of the factors of previous research and the four factors included in this research can be found in appendix I. In the next sections the four climate characteristics and their relevance for the variation and selection/retention process are explained.

2.4 Climate characteristics influencing variation

Operational freedom in this study is the degree to which teams have the freedom to try out

(11)

desired change by the organization. This leads to the following research question (specifying the earlier mentioned general research question): How does operational freedom influence the

development of process-oriented ways of collaboration? It is expected that this team climate

factor first and foremost promotes the variation part of the involved emergent processes.

Internal and external debate is the degree to which employees share different ideas

and thoughts within their team and with employees at other places in the organization. It could be said that this influences the process of consideration of change initiatives, earlier referred to as variation. The openness of exchanging information (Weiss et al., 2011; Schneider et al., 1996), sharing ideas and voicing concerns (Tierney, 1999; Schneider et al., 1996) are part of this debate. This enables employees to move away from following set patterns and procedures of how tasks should be performed and makes employees start looking for alternatives (Isaksen & Lauer, 2002). The interaction between team members as well as the interaction of team members with people outside the team is likely to influence the behavior of the team members (Weiss et al., 2011), thereby changing the adaptive choices made during a change process. As mentioned earlier, Armistead & Machin (1998) stated that in process-oriented organizations the management of cross-functional processes is important, which could indicate the importance of external debate. This leads to the following research question (specifying the earlier mentioned general research question): How does the degree of

internal and external debate influence the development of process-oriented ways of collaboration? It is expected that this team climate factor first and foremost promotes the

variation part of the involved emergent processes.

2.5 Climate characteristics influencing selection/retention

Supportive leadership is the perceived support from the leader to try out and institutionalize

new ways of working. According to Schneider et al. (1996) the behavior of employees that is supported or rewarded by the leader has a large influence on the actual behavior of employees. Isaksen and Lauer (2002) stress the importance of leading by example, encouraging employees to take on new ideas and give clear guidance in doing so. Supportive leadership influences the process of selection/retention during a change project, because it influences the process of trying out new things and encouragement to institutionalize the new ways of working. This leads to the following research question (specifying the earlier mentioned general research question): How does supportive leadership influence the

(12)

factor first and foremost promotes the selection/retention part of the involved emergent processes.

Team norms are a set of formal and informal rules and guidelines about how team

members expect other team members to behave within the team and should be taken into account when analyzing change situations. These norms could bias the behavior of members, because behavior of team members will be in line with the established norms (Montoya & Pittinsky, 2012). Stabilized norms often encourage employees to adhere to the current goals, routines and thoughts (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000). In this way a team member is reluctant to propose changes in the status quo. According to Paulus and Dzindolet (1993) team norms should encourage risk-taking and trying out new things in order to get things changed within the team. Isaksen and Lauer (2002) and Weiss et al. (2000) also stress the importance of tolerance for ambiguity, uncertainty and mistakes. These norms could therefore influence the selection/retention process in the way that it could affect the trying-out and institutionalization of the proposed changes. This leads to the following research question (specifying the earlier mentioned general research question): How do team norms influence the development of

process-oriented ways of collaboration? It is expected that this team climate factor first and

foremost promotes the selection/retention part of the involved emergent processes.

Figure 1 provides a summary of the before mentioned factors. The factors are grouped based on the variation and selection/retention process.

(13)

3. METHODOLOGY

This chapter starts with explaining the research approach. Then the organization that was subject of this study is presented, followed by the units of analysis. Afterwards the data collection method and data analysis method are explained.

3.1 Research approach

To investigate the relationship between team climate characteristics and the emergence of a process-oriented way of collaboration within organizations an explorative case study was conducted. An embedded single case study (one case study with multiple units of analysis) is chosen to enable in-depth analysis of the change process while keeping the main focus on the research question. The case and units of analysis were selected based on judgment sampling, which is non-random sampling based on the judgment of the researcher (Cooper & Schindler, 2008). The judgment for selecting the case was based on the type of change (development of process-oriented ways of collaboration) researched and the different units of analysis were selected based on the division of organizational units.

The above resembles a part of Eisenhardt's theory building approach (1989), which consists of the following steps: getting started, selecting cases, crafting protocols, entering the field, analyzing cases, shaping hypothesis, enfolding literature, and reaching closure. Getting started entails defining the problem and setting out the boundaries of the research, which is done in the introduction and theory section. Afterwards the case was selected and teams were selected to join the research. Third, the interview protocol was crafted to ensure that the interview questions met the research subject and contributed to the exploration of it. Then the researcher entered the field and conducted interviews. Fifth, a within-case analysis was performed. Lastly, propositions were shaped and the outcomes were compared with existing literature.

3.2 Case

(14)

this led to the advice to reorganize the organization in order to become more efficient and achieve 5% structural savings on labor costs.

To achieve the before mentioned, the organization developed a plan for a redesigned organizational structure and culture. This new structure and culture are characterized by a process-oriented way of working. The desired culture is based on three key pillars: self-steering, smart collaborating, and results count. Employees should be more self-steering through having a clear and defined output, having the freedom to collaborate with others to achieve this output and having a clear framework in which employees can achieve this output. Smart collaborating means that employees constantly have to think of the next link in the chain and should move away from silo thinking. Results count means that every employee within the organization has to think from a value adding perspective while performing tasks.

After the presentation of the initial plan, the organization started with a ‘workplace’ where employees were encouraged to think of new and innovative improvements, a knowledge-carousel was started to increase and develop knowledge of employees, department leaders started with a management-development project, and additional training that encouraged the new way of working within the organization was offered to employees. Together these processes can be said to constitute the planned part of the change towards the newly desired situation.

In summary, the new structure means less management layers and a reclassification of tasks and roles. As from July 2013 employees were reclassified and the new structure was put in place. It was expected by the organization that the restructuration of roles and responsibilities together with the development of self-steering, smart collaborating and result-focused employees contributed to the development of process-oriented ways of collaboration.

3.3 Units of analysis

Four units of analysis were selected based on the division of organizational units and based on the expected high impact of the change on the selected teams. The organization can be divided into field staff and office staff. From both the field staff and the office staff two teams were asked to participate. The teams were selected based on the expected high impact of the change on the organization of work within the teams. Besides, the Water board stressed the important role of the selected teams in enabling the organization to collaborate in a more process-oriented way.

(15)

watersystemen en keringen regio Raalte’ (from now on referred to as field staff Raalte). The office staff can be divided into operational staff and support staff. From the department services the secretarial staff participated as the support staff team. The team that participated from the operational staff is the team additional staff from the ‘Planvorming’ department (from now on referred to as additional staff ‘Planvorming’). Field staff Kampen consists of eleven male employees, field staff Raalte consists of thirteen male employees, secretarial staff consists of nine female employees and additional staff ‘Planvorming’ consists of four male and three female employees.

3.4 Data collection method

Interviews were used to collect data about the case. Experiences of the interviewees were of interest for this research and therefore focused on in the interview. The interview contained open-ended questions to enable probing deeper into the responses of the interviewee, which suits the explorative character of this research (Cooper & Schindler, 2008), and helped to extract a variety of factual experiences that show the influence of the factors on the emergence of the change. A pilot interview was held to test whether the questions resulted in the data needed for this research. The interview protocol for both the team member and team leader can be found in appendix II.

During the interview questions were asked to gather information about what factors positively or negatively influenced the change project. The first set of questions focused on the change process, its outcomes and the factors that influenced these outcomes. This set was meant to bring about factors experienced by the interviewees that were of influence on the emergence of the change not specified in the theory section. By starting off with the question what changed, then asking what factors made that change happen and lastly by asking if the interviewee could give a concrete example that shows the influence of the factor on the emergence of the change the case was explored.

The second set of questions focused on the influence of the planned change activities on the change outcomes. This set of questions was meant to measure the influence of the planned change activities on the emergence of the change. Also during this set of question the interviewee was asked to give a concrete example that shows the influence of the planned activity on the emergence of the change.

(16)

asked to give a concrete example about the influence of the factor on the emergence of the change.

Within each team three members and the leader were interviewed. First, the team leaders were invited to join the research via email. Secondly, the team leader randomly chose team members to participate in this research. The chosen team members received an invitation for the interview via email. The interviews lasted on average one hour and took place at the work location of the interviewees. All interviews were recorded on two electronic devices, using the program Tell Note. Tell Note is an audio recording tool, which can be used on Apple Inc. devices. Confidentiality and anonymity were guaranteed regarding the interviewees.

3.5 Data analysis method

The data from the sixteen interviews was transcribed and coded based on both deductive and inductive coding. The coded data were interview fragments that indicated the presence or absence of certain factors and the impact of those factors on the development towards a process-oriented way of collaboration. Deductive coding is theory-driven, since the codes emerge from the theory chapter. The preset codes were: planned activities, operational freedom, internal and external debate, supportive leadership, and team norms. A description of these preset codes can be found in columns 1-3 of table 2a.

(17)

Figure 2. Steps in the coding process

Step 1. Develop the preset coding scheme

Step 2. Code all the sixteen interviews and add emerged codes in doing so Step 3. Add the emerged codes to the coding scheme

Step 4. Ask a fellow researcher to code one interview

Step 5. Compare the coded interview with the interview coded by the researcher Step 6. Discuss differences in coding

Step 7. Alter the initial coding scheme

Step 8. Code all the sixteen interviews for the second time

Step 9. Compare the coding outcomes of the first and second round of coding Step 10. Conduct final coding

The interviews were made anonymous by assigning a label to each interviewee consisting of the team name and a number. Interviewee one, two, and three are team members and interviewee four is the team leader. The labels are shown in table below.

Table 1. Labels given to the interviewees

Interviewee Team

1 2 3 4

Secretarial staff SS1 SS2 SS3 SS4

Additional staff ‘Planvorming’ AP1 AP2 AP3 AP4

Field staff Kampen FK1 FK2 FK3 FK4

Field staff Raalte FR1 FR2 FR3 FR4

(18)

4. RESULTS

First the coding scheme, used for the interview analysis, and the corresponding findings are presented. Secondly, the results of this research are presented per team, based on the different factors that were found to be of influence on the variation and selection/retention process. As explained in the preceding chapters the interviews focused on two factors that may give rise to the generation of ideas about new ways of working, or in short, variation. These two factors studied are operational freedom and internal and external debate. Supportive leadership and team norms are studied as the factors that may give rise to the institutionalization of new ways of working, or in short, the selection/retention process. For both the variation and selection/retention process other factors that were found to be of influence, derived from the interviews, are presented.

4.1 Coding scheme

The coding scheme, used for the interview analysis, and the corresponding findings are presented in table 2a and 2b below. Table 2b shows the emerged codes found in this research. Columns 4-6 of table 2a and 2b show the corresponding findings of the preset and emerged codes of this research.

Table 2a. Preset codes, used for the interview analysis, and the corresponding findings

No. Code Description Sample

Freq-uency Specific Respondents 1. Planned activities Structured as one team

Employees are structured together into one team, which makes it easier to collaborate with each other

“Now collaboration happens easier, because we are one secretarial team […] and try to align tasks” (SS2) 6 SS1, SS2, SS4, FR1, FR2, FR4 2. New organiza-tional structure Reclassification of tasks and roles and

reassigning managers leads to the basis for a process-oriented way of collaboration

“A plain ownership-focused way of working […] I report to the area manager, he translates it into a work assignment and passes it on to the leader, who will pass it on to X”(FR3) 7 SS2, FK3, FK4, FR3, FR4, AP3, AP4 3 Personal develop-ment training A training oriented at developing employees focused on communication positively influences a process-oriented way of collaboration

“The training changed X, he now listens to what is being said […] the field staff also noticed this […] they say: X really is a different person.”(FR3) 9 SS1, SS4, AP2 FK1, FK2, FK4, FR2, FR3, FR4 4. + Operational freedom

The degree to which one perceives the freedom to make decisions,

“That is a certain amount of freedom that everyone experiences in his job.

(19)

flexibility in performing the job and opportunity to try out new things positively influences the development of a process-oriented way of collaboration

The framework is given, but within that

framework: deal with it!” (FK4) “You need to search for collaboration, because the specific steps to take are not given” (AP3)

FR2, FR4

- Operational freedom

The degree to which one perceives the freedom to make decisions,

flexibility in performing the job and opportunity to try out new things negatively influences the development of a process-oriented way of collaboration

“I think it is difficult [for us] to start collaborating […], because we prefer not to work in a certain preset way ” (SS1)

6 SS1, SS2, SS3, AP1, AP3, FR3

5. + Internal debate The degree to which members of the team share ideas, thoughts and dare to be critical towards each other positively influences the development towards a process-oriented way of collaboration.

“Now we have knowledge sessions, in which we discuss cases, share ideas and another result of these sessions is that we help each other out more often” (SS2)

8 SS2, SS3, SS4, AP3*, AP4, FK1, FK3, FR4

- Internal debate The degree to which members of the team share ideas, thoughts and dare to be critical towards each other limits the development towards a process-oriented way of collaboration.

“Calling attention to each other’s responsibilities […] simply does not exist in the culture of Groot Salland […] people find it hard to confront others […] and to clearly formulate and transfer a message” (AP2)

4 AP1, AP2, AP3, FR3

6. + External debate The degree to which members of a team share ideas and thoughts and dare to be critical towards others in the organization positively influences the

development towards a process-oriented way of collaboration.

“Two men from the Rouveen region often have their own view on a project […] and then I think about it and decide”(FK3)

4 FK1, FK2, FK3, FR3

- External debate The degree to which members of a team share ideas and thoughts and dare to be critical towards others in the organization negatively influences the

development towards a process-oriented way of collaboration

“That is the theory and practice difference again […] , because they make decisions without properly discussing it [with us] first”(FK1)

5 AP2, AP3, FK1, FK2 FK4

7. + Supportive leadership

The leader always having a positive attitude towards the change and stimulating the needed

“By giving trust and letting people try things out […] and by showing a lot of positivity” (SS1)

(20)

changes positively influences the

development of the team

“By thinking of the input needed from every role”. (AP2)

FR1, FR2, FR3, FR4 - Supportive

leadership

The leader not always having a positive attitude towards the change and not always stimulating the needed changes negatively influences the development of the team

“He has a clear vision, however he is not always capable of sharing that vision with others” (AP2) “He often handles things he should not handle in the new situation”(FR3)

7 SS3, AP1, AP2, AP3, FR1, FR2, FR3

8. + Team norms The standard for working together as a team, how they communicate with each other and what is their attitude towards change positively influences the change process.

“That everyone should stay positive […] and not only look at their own silo […] and make sure our opinion is heard by others […] which leads to the willingness to help each other out.” (FK4).

3 AP4, FK4, SS2

- Team norms The standard for working together as a team, how they communicate with each other and what is their attitude towards change negatively influences the change process.

“The team’s first reaction to change is to just wait and see […] [and] within the team is also a somewhat negative view towards the headquarters visible” (FR1)

7 SS3, AP2, AP3, FR1, FR2, FR3, FR4

* This interview fragment is foremost based on judgment instead of facts

Table 2b. Emerged codes, used for the interview analysis, and the corresponding findings

No. Code Description Sample

Freq-uency Specific Respondents 1. Physical grouping of employees

The way employees are grouped and organized in rooms or workgroups triggers looking outside your own silo and looking for collaboration

“I noticed that the physical grouping over the rooms already makes a difference […] for some employees this was the trigger to start working in a different way and take a broader perspective when performing their job” (AP2) 6 SS2, SS4, AP2, AP4, FR3, FR4 2. Highly Individualistic job Low interdependency between team members negatively influences the development towards process-oriented way of collaboration, due to the fact that there was no need to collaborate

“I did not really participate in the change project, because I have a very individualistic job” (AP1) “I do not need anybody in my job” (SS3) 4 SS1, SS3, AP1, AP3 3. Introduction of work meetings

Work meetings with the team positively influences collaboration by discussing important issues, aligning tasks and searching for uniformity

“Once a month we meet with the whole team about what is happening in the region and what is discussed at the headquarters” (FK2) “What are our roles and responsibilities and how can we best make use of these in light of the organization” (AP2)

12 SS2, SS4, AP1*, AP2, AP3*, FK1, FK2, FK3, FK4, FR1, FR3, FR4 4. Time constraints

The degree to which employees perceive that

“Due to the time pressure there is no time to share knowledge and

(21)

they have not enough time to perform their standard tasks limits the degree of trying out the new way of working

try out new things”(SS2) “I know my department manager and he needs more than just a part time assistant, so I am here way more hours”(SS3)

FR1, FR3

5. Interpersonal tensions

The personal relationships of the employees within the team hinders collaboration between team members

“We listen too much to our feelings [which makes] walking to certain people [to ask for help] hard” (SS1) 2 SS1, SS4 6. Lack of clarity about the change project

The lack of clarity of the information about the roles and responsibilities and direction of the organization negatively influences the development of the organization.

“There was a lot of uncertainty and lack of clarity”(FR1) “Every department manager had his own interpretation of the concept, which makes communication difficult” (AP2) 5 AP2, AP3, FK3, FR1, FR2 7. Negative attitude towards change

Negative attitude towards the change project slows down the change project.

“A lot of team members applied for another function and some were really disappointed [that they did not get it]” (FR1) “They are above the age of 60 so I understand their feeling: FR4 do we really have to deal with this?” (FR4)

7 SS3, FK1, FK3, FR1, FR2, FR3, FR4

* This interview fragment is foremost based on judgment instead of facts

4.2 Outcomes of the interviews with the secretarial staff 4.2.1 Impact of the operational freedom on the variation process

The interviewed secretaries indicated that they perceive the operational freedom as relatively high, within the standard tasks that need to be performed. They can decide for themselves how and when they perform the tasks requested. The operational freedom is said to limit the development of collaboration, because every secretary likes to perform her tasks in the way she prefers herself and people are used to their own routines. As interviewee SS1 explained:

“I think it is difficult to work together [if] you do not really want to work in a certain pre-set way.” This negatively influenced the variation process, because the employees were reluctant

to generate ideas about how the work should be done. According to one interviewed secretary this is also constrained by the time pressure that is experienced, because she has no time to share knowledge and try out new things.

4.2.2 Impact of the internal and external debate on the variation process

(22)

[…] we also did that before [the change project], but because we are a team now this happens easier.” (SS2) In work meetings they discussed how they would like to work with

each other and what the future will look like, in other words they generated ideas about the new way of working.

The interviewed secretaries indicated that external debate is partly present. Two secretaries indicated that they actively tried to make other employees more self-steering by, for example, making employees perform tasks that in the past the secretaries would have done for them. As interviewee SS2 explained: “As secretaries we stimulate that, we try to tell them

how they could do certain things” In this way through the external debate employees

generated new ideas about how they could perform certain tasks, which made them more self-steering. This is strengthened by the fact that, due to the large amount of employees they work for, they also do not have time to take on all tasks requested. On the other hand the interviewees indicate that they do not dare to be really critical towards others, due to the fact that they believe that they do not hold the position to do so.

4.2.3 Impact of the introduction of work meetings on the variation process

At the beginning of the change project the leader of the secretarial staff introduced work meetings. The interviewed leader explained that these meetings are called knowledge sessions and that during a meeting a certain theme is discussed and work procedures are aligned and standardized. As interviewee SS2 explained: “For example: How do you handle

appointments? How do you add things to your calendar? How do we handle email? Can we maybe unify these tasks?”(SS2). During these sessions ideas are generated about how the

work can be arranged in a process-oriented way.

4.2.4 Impact of the degree of individualism on the variation process

(23)

4.2.5 Impact of the physical grouping of employees on the variation process

Another factor that influenced the variation process is the physical grouping of employees. The new leader of the team changed the grouping of the secretaries across the building. She grouped two or three secretaries together in one room. The interviewed secretaries commented that the physical grouping had a positive impact, because it enabled information sharing and helping each other out, which led to new insights about the way of working. The interviewed leader explained the effect as follows: “When you are located in one room with

the three of you all of the same profession […] you can see, hear and think oh you are good at that […] maybe you can help me with that?”

4.2.6 Impact of the interpersonal tensions on the variation process

The interviewed secretaries indicated that interpersonal tensions are visible between members of the secretarial team. These interpersonal tensions inhibit sharing ideas and information within the team, because as one interviewed secretary explained team members do not want to ask other team members for help. This negatively influenced the variation process, because the interpersonal tensions inhibit the team to generate new ideas about how the work could be organized.

The interviewee adds that the fact that the secretaries are placed together into one room eventually moderates the effect of the interpersonal tensions on the degree of collaboration, because you are working in one room and have to behave professionally. The interviewed leader explained that she also actively steered towards this by clearly expressing that this was the desired way of working and that the secretaries had to make it work. “I

clearly mentioned that this is the way I would like to work and that they should behave businesslike and professional and try to make it work with each other.”(SS4)

4.2.7 Impact of the time constraints on the variation process

The three interviewed secretaries all expressed that they felt time constraints to perform the tasks within their job. The time constraints limited the variation process, because there was not enough time to think of new ways of working and priority was given to accomplishing standard tasks. Interviewee SS3 answered to the question if she deliberately did not participate in the training: “Yes partly conscious and then more because of the fact that I only

(24)

to learn new things and sharing less information than she would have wanted. “If you learn

more new things, you can share that with each other and everyone can learn from that, but we do not have time to do so.” (SS2) What is contradicting is that the leader expresses that

employees have more time after the change project and are asking for extra tasks, while all three interviewed secretaries experienced time constraints.

All the factors influencing the variation process of the secretarial staff are summarized in table 3 below.

Table 3. Summary of the factors influencing the variation process of the secretarial staff

Factor Impact on variation Source

Operational freedom

Negatively influenced variation, due to the preferred freedom and own way of working. SS1, SS2, SS3 Internal and external debate

The internal debate positively influenced the variation process, because alignment between secretaries is searched for. The external debate positively influenced the variation process, because the secretaries actively tried to encourage colleagues to become self-steering.

SS2, SS3, SS4 Introduction of

work meetings

The work meetings positively influenced the variation process, because in these meetings agreements about the new way of working were obtained.

SS2, SS4 Individualistic job The low interconnectedness between the secretaries negatively influenced the

variation process, because the low need for collaboration made the secretaries pursue their own routines.

SS1, SS2 Physical grouping

of employees

Changes in the physical grouping of employees positively influenced the variation process, because employees started looking outside their own silo.

SS2, SS4 Interpersonal

tensions

The interpersonal tensions that were visible negatively influenced the variation process, because it inhibited the secretaries to search for collaboration

SS1, SS4 Time constraints The perceived time constraints negatively influenced the variation process,

because there was no time to think of new ways of working or share knowledge with others.

SS1, SS2, SS3

4.2.8 Impact of leadership on the selection/retention process

The interviewed secretaries described their leader as one that steered pro-activity, flexibility and positivity throughout the change project and has attention for the individual. Upfront of the change she invested in the individual. The positive attitude, encouragement of the needed changes and personal attention of the leader is, according to the interviewed secretaries, said to have positively influenced the selection/retention process, because it made employees enthusiastic and willing to work in line with the new structure. As interviewee SS4 explained during the interview: “Preceding the first of July I already had a lot of conversations […]

and therefore at the moment that it was clear who would be placed in which function a lot of people were already happy with their new position.”(SS4) Two interviewees stressed the

(25)

sessions, where she convinces others to join the change project: “Well, she is full of energy

[at these meetings] and not everyone is as enthusiastic but she just keeps going for it.” (SS1).

4.2.9 Impact of the team norms on the selection/retention process

The interviewed secretaries explained that the team norms of the secretarial staff are that everyone team member likes to perform her tasks in her own way, but there is room for questions and collaboration when deemed necessary. According to the interviewed secretaries the team norms limited the selection/retention process, because due to the preferred independency the secretaries did not actively seek for collaboration. Besides, the room for questions and collaboration is moderated by the interpersonal tensions mentioned earlier.

4.2.10 Impact of the planned change processes on the selection/retention process

The change project had several planned activities, namely the restructuration of the organization, reclassification of roles and responsibilities, and training opportunities. The interviewed secretaries explained that for the secretaries the change project meant that they became one team instead of being part of the department they worked for. This new structure and training contributed to the institutionalization of the intended changes, because it enabled the secretaries to work in a different way. As indicated by the interviewed secretaries, being one team enabled working more efficiently and created uniformity: “Every now and then you

can do the work of others, substitute the other or when there is a big task […] the coordinator can send out an email: Who has time? And then we work together on the task.”(SS1) One

secretary and the leader note that the personal development training made employees more pro-active and one secretary now dares to ask more questions, leading to more self-steering employees. “Well, now she comes to you earlier.” (SS1) “Well, they are more visible at the

table, meaning that they express their own opinion more often.”(SS4)

4.2.11 Impact of the introduction of work meetings on the selection/retention process

(26)

All factors influencing the selection/retention process of the secretarial staff are summarized in table 4 below.

Table 4. Summary of the factors influencing the selection/retention process of the secretarial staff

Factor Impact on selection/retention Source

Leadership Supportive leadership positively influenced the selection/retention process, because the leader actively steered for the new way of working.

SS1, SS2, SS4 Team norms The team norms negatively influenced the selection/retention process, because

although there is room for collaboration the preferred individualism leads to little institutionalization of the new way of working.

SS3

Planned change processes

The planned processes positively influenced the selection/retention process, because becoming one team led to more collaboration between the secretaries and the personal development training increased communication.

SS1, SS2, SS4 Introduction of

work meetings

The structure of the work meetings positively influenced the selection/retention process, because it leads to alignment and uniformity which suits the new way of working.

SS2, SS4

4.3 Outcomes of the interviews with the additional staff ‘Planvorming’ 4.3.1 Impact of the operational freedom on the variation process

The operational freedom within the cluster is perceived as large by the interviewed team additional staff ‘Planvorming’, within boundaries the team members have the freedom to perform their work as they prefer. According to the interviewed team member the high degree of operational freedom contributed to the development of process-oriented ways of collaboration in the sense that one needs to search for answers and new ways of working to get the job done: “Because up front you do not have a certain framework, you have to

consciously think about what you want and why.”(AP2) One interviewee explained that the

perceived freedom also had its side effects, because some employees needed more direction:

“Certain people need more direction, because of their education, background or the level of experience.”(AP3). The interviewed leader also concluded that the operational freedom did

not suit everyone in the department. According to the interviewed leader some employees were not able to think of new ways of working and were therefore stuck in their old routines.

(27)

these discussions about the change project positively influenced the variation process, because the new way of working was designed through these discussions.

The degree of discussion with other departments is low and consultation is only done when it is deemed really necessary. One interviewee indicated that the lack of external debate about the change project inhibited the development, because no clear agreements were made about what the change project would entail. “Every department leader has a different

interpretation of the project, which makes communication difficult.”(AP2) This leads to no

shared view on the project and hinders the generation of ideas about the new way of working.

Department meetings were arranged to discuss what a process-oriented way of working means for the department, how the department would be structured and what the input of all employees would be. Within these meetings ideas were generated about how the new situation would work. Apart from the department meetings, the team also started with meetings to discuss all tasks and responsibilities and how they can work together as a team. These meetings have only been held a couple of times, therefore the interviewees explained that the effects of these meetings are not really visible yet. All interviewed staff members of ‘Planvorming’ expect that these meetings will result in at least creating ideas about how to make the situation work and will therefore contribute to the variation process.

4.3.4 Impact of the degree of individualism on the variation process

The interviewees indicated that the high degree of individualism negatively influenced the generation of ideas about how a more process-oriented way of working could be achieved. Interviewee AP1 commented to the impact of the high degree of individualism by stating that it made him not actively participate in the change project, because he gave priority to his own tasks.

4.3.5 Impact of the physical grouping of employees on the variation process

The interviewed leader explained that he chose to change the grouping of employees over the rooms available, to enable employees to get to know each other and enable collaboration: “I

deliberately chose not to put all ecologists with the ecologists [...], but to mix them.”(AP4)

(28)

example that for some employees the new composition of employees was the trigger to start to look outside their own silos and also to look more at other departments of the Water board.

All factors influencing the variation process of the additional staff ‘Planvorming’ are summarized in table 5 below.

Table 5. Summary of the factors influencing the variation process of additional staff ‘Planvorming’

Factor Impact on variation Source

Operational freedom

The operational freedom positively and negatively influenced the variation process. On the one hand the freedom led to collaboration, because employees started searching for the needed information. On the other hand it led to

employees not trying out new things, because the freedom made them anxious to make mistakes. AP1, AP2, AP3, AP4 Internal and external debate

The internal debate positively influenced the variation process, because through the sharing of ideas and thoughts new ways of working were generated. The external debate negatively influenced the variation process, because little external debate took place leading to mismatches between different departments.

AP1, AP2, AP3 Introduction of

work meetings

The work meetings positively influenced the variation process, because during these meetings agreements on the design of the structure and routines were made. AP1, AP2, AP3 Individualistic job

The low degree of interconnectedness between team/department members negatively influenced the variation process, because employees did not actively participate in the change project

AP1, AP3 Physical

grouping of employees

The change in physical grouping of employees positively influenced the variation process, because it made employees look outside their own silo and search for collaboration.

AP2, AP4

4.3.6 Impact of leadership on the selection/retention process

The interviewed team members partly perceived leadership as positive in relation to the change. Interviewee AP2 praises the fact that the leader really thought about a department structure that fitted the desired changes. However, the leadership is perceived by the interviewed additional staff ‘Planvorming’ as negative in relation to the selection/retention process, because the leadership lacks clarity about the direction of the change and more steering from the leader is needed to enable employees to institutionalize the new way of working: “It often stays with general statements and therefore it is not clear if he exchanges

enough information between one another.”(AP3). Therefore the importance of one-to-one

meetings is stressed to make sure that everyone is moving in the same direction: “People who

(29)

4.3.7 Impact of the team norms on the selection/retention process

The interviewees commented that the team norms of the additional staff “Planvorming’ are open and informal: one can always ask for help from one another. However, the interviewees also explained that one has to be very careful in the approach and consultation. The interviewees indicated that this negatively influenced the development of the department, because unclear communication slowed down development and unclear agreements makes a process-oriented way of collaboration impossible: “Short and clear communication, leading

to less misunderstanding is something that we could improve, but does not fit our culture” (AP3) Interviewee AP3 concluded that unclear communication could be one of the reasons

why there is still a lack of clarity about the responsibility and roles of all employees.

4.3.8 Impact of the planned change processes on the selection/retention process

In the new organizational structure employees from different departments are grouped together in one department. According to the interviewed leader the new structure led to employees thinking less in silos. Before the change project the functions of the employees were seen as more specialist functions and they were only considering the tasks that were in their own silo. Interviewed leader AP4 explained that due the new structure employees are more general consultants: “In the past they were stuck in silos: I am a policy maker for

operation and maintenance and now he is a general policy maker.” The new organizational

structure positively influenced the selection/retention process, because the employees of the department started to collaborate with each other and work more with the department in mind instead of their own silo.

4.3.9 Impact of internal debate and external on the selection/retention process

(30)

4.3.10 Impact of the lack of clarity on the selection/retention process

The lack of clarity also influenced the selection/retention process. According to the interviewed team members the lack of clarity leads to situations where employees are not performing their work as they are supposed to do in the new situation and therefore negatively influences the selection/retention of the proposed changes: “At this moment decisions are

made not in line with the existing framework or decisions are made about things were the framework not yet exists.” (AP2)

4.3.11 Impact of the introduction of work meetings on the selection/retention process

The introduction of work meetings is said to positively contribute to the selection/retention process. In the interviews the team members explained that in work meetings the new way of working is tried out by for example searching for alignment between tasks.

All factors influencing the selection/retention process of the additional staff ‘Planvorming’ are summarized in table 6 below.

Table 6. Summary of the factors influencing the selection/retention process of additional staff ‘Planvorming’

Factor Impact on selection/retention Source

Leadership Leadership negatively influenced the selection/retention process, because the lack of direction and goals leads to employees not knowing the new way of working.

AP1, AP2, AP3 Team norms The team norms negatively influenced the selection/retention process, because

the preferred way of working does not fit the team norms

AP2, AP3 Planned change

processes

The planned processes positively influenced the selection/retention process, because due to the new roles and responsibilities employees are starting to think outside their own silo and search for collaboration

AP2, AP3, AP4 Internal and

external debate

The internal and external debate negatively influenced the selection/retention process, because unclear communication leads to unclear agreements which make it hard to institutionalize the new way of working.

AP2, AP3 Lack of clarity The lack of clarity negatively influenced the selection/retention process,

because it leads to a mismatch between how employees perform and should perform their work.

AP2, AP3 Introduction of

work meetings

The introduction of work meetings positively influenced the selection/retention process, because the structure enables employees to work in a more process-oriented way.

AP1, AP2, AP3

4.4. Outcomes of the interviews with the Field staff Kampen 4.4.1 Impact of the operational freedom on the variation process

(31)

group how they will perform a certain assignment and therefore leads to the generation of ideas: “You consult with the two [employees] you are working with about how you will do the

job”(FK2).

The interviewed team members of the field staff Kampen explained that within the team there is a lot of internal debate, due to the nature of the work. In other words, internal debate is needed to get the job done. According to the interviewees the internal debate contributed to the variation process, because the team discussed the change project and its consequences during work meetings: “We discussed the change project with each other, what are the points

for improvements and so on” (FK2) The internal debate therefore led to the generation of

ideas, or in short variation.

The results of the interviews indicate that there is a difference in external debate between the different regions of the field staff and between the region and the headquarters. The team leader explained that between the different regions a lot of debate is done about the design of the four regions and the new way of working. Apart from that, the leader noted that the regions help each other out when needed. The external debate between the different regions therefore positively contributed to the generation of ideas about the new way of working. According to the interviewed team members the degree of external debate between the field staff Kampen and employees from the headquarters is relatively low. The interviewees explained that there often is a difference between theory (headquarters) and practice (field staff), because little input is asked from employees in the region and no shared view is realized. The low degree of external debate between the field staff Kampen and the headquarters is said to negatively influence the generation of ideas, because little input is asked: “Then the theory and practice difference is visible again, because they decide things

before having a proper discussion [with us].”(FK1)

(32)

According to the interviewed field staff Kampen the introduction of work meetings positively contributed to the change project. These monthly meetings are used to discuss information from the headquarters, discuss the work schedule and there is room for discussion. The interviewed team members commented that the impact of the work meetings on the variation process was positive, because ideas were generated about the new way of working. Interviewee FK1 explained this generation of ideas in comparison with the old situation:

“Well [what changed is] the way we are meeting now and talk about how we should maintain the waterway. Earlier you had certain people who already knew themselves how that is supposed to be done.”(FK1)

4.4.5 Impact of the planned change processes on the variation process

The new organizational structure resulted in a different leader for the Kampen region. In the interviews it was pointed out that the difference between the approach of the previous leader and the current leader is one of the main points that changed field staff Kampen. According to one interviewee the change in leadership led to employees getting back the feeling that they have the freedom to come up with ideas, which contributed to the variation process. Interviewee FK3 explained that the previous leader was very strict and not very open for new ideas leading to a negative work ethos: “We had someone here for a while who was busier

with himself.” (FK3), while the current leader is one that is steering for collaboration and

pro-activity.

The leader explained that he promotes the personal development training. During the interviews the team members explained that several team members have a very direct communication style and that through the training this altered: “They stay quiet, in the past

they always started talking immediately.” (FK2) The change in communication due to the

personal development training led to a change in the group dynamics: more open discussion within the team about the work that needs to be done, which enables the generation of ideas of new ways of working within the team.

THE IMPACT OF TEAM CLIMATE RELATED FACTORS CONDUCIVE TO THE EMERGENCE OF PROCESS- ORIENTED WAYS OF COLLABORATION WITHIN ORGANIZATIONS